One of the wisest pieces of advice was coined by an anonymous Ministry of Transport official in the mid-1960s. It was intended for motorists, but applies to politicians: “Do not enter box unless exit is clear.” Had Tony Blair heeded these words, he would surely have thought harder and longer before embarking on his programme of constitutional change. Every component has developed a life of its own: Scotland, Wales, the House of Lords, voting reform and, now, London. In each case, the control freak has failed to keep control.
To which every democrat can only respond: thank goodness. The proper purpose of constitutional change is to transfer power to the people, not to manipulate them. When historians look back on the early days of the new London polity, as well as on the Scottish Parliament and our new way of electing Euro-MPs, they are likely to write not just about Ken Livingstone, student grants and last June’s abysmal turnout. They may well detect in Tony Blair’s reforms the beginning of the end of our two-party system.There is a real chance – or danger – of the fragmentation of British politics.
London provides the latest stage on Britain’s journey into proportional representation. Already there are signs that this journey will be bumpy – not least for Labour. In last year’s Scottish elections, minor parties won only 3 per cent of the constituency votes, but 10 per cent of votes for party lists. When people saw that the smaller parties could win a seat, many of them deserted their traditional party home when casting their second list vote. Labour’s support diverged by 5 percentage points between the constituency vote (39 per cent) and the list vote (34 per cent). The Lib Dems diverged by 2 percentage points (14 versus 12). And the Greens and militant socialists both won a seat.
A month later, the European elections produced an even starker result. The main parties, including the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, won 81 per cent of the total vote, compared with 96 per cent in the 1997 general election. The total share of the vote won by minor parties leapt from 4 per cent to 19, giving the UK Independence Party three seats and the Greens two. And Labour collapsed to 28 per cent – equalling its annus horribilis of 1983, when Margaret Thatcher won her biggest landslide.
Next month’s elections to the new Greater London Assembly will also be conducted on a proportional system. With Ken Livingstone now backing the Green list, and other parties offering an outlet for electors who wish to vote for an Asian businessman, or for withdrawal from the European Union, or for Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, or for a “real” socialist (two options here: the Arthur Scargill or Paul Foot variety), the “others” tally on election night could approach 25 per cent – or more, if Livingstone’s support for the Greens catches the popular imagination.
As in Scotland, Labour in London is likely to suffer most from the switch to PR. The party should still win most of the 14 local area seats, but may not be entitled to any of the 11 “top-up” seats. Trevor Phillips, who heads Labour’s list, has been facing questions about whether he will work with Livingstone, assuming the former GLC leader is elected mayor. The real question is whether Phillips will be in a position to make that choice, for he may not win election to the London Assembly at all.
In the longer term, however, proportional representation is likely to alter the whole dynamic of British politics. First past the post punishes small parties and all but guarantees a duopoly. PR gives small parties a chance to flourish. It also makes life easier for prominent politicians to form breakaway groups. Under our existing system for electing MPs, the Social Democrats were all but doomed from the day they were formed in 1981. Under PR, they might have been running the country today under their own colours, rather than seeing their ideas implemented by new Labour.
If – admittedly a big “if” – the House of Commons ends up being elected by PR, we could easily see the end of the big parties with their everything-under-one-roof, hypermarket approach to politics. Instead, we could end up with a wide range of niche parties, promoting special policy product-lines: on Europe, the environment, ethnic issues, sexuality – even, possibly, ideology. Livingstone could be the start of a long line of successful independents.
Meanwhile, the number-crunchers of Millbank and Conservative Central Office will be looking for clues to the true state of the parties as we enter the long run-up to the next general election. For the reasons given above, London may tell them little that is useful. They will be reading the runes from local elections outside London.
Already the parties are trying to play down expectations. Labour is defending 1,700 of the 3,300 wards being contested. The last time they were fought was 1996, when John Major’s government was in the mire. Labour says that if it loses fewer than 500, and the Tories gain fewer than 400, then Blair should be happy. The Conservatives claim that 200 gains would be enough to cheer William Hague.
Sensible people will tiptoe away from these games, and concentrate on vote share. Last year, Labour held a slender lead of 2-3 points when the raw results were converted into a nationwide vote share. If the Conservatives reverse that, then Hague will be able to claim a moral victory – but no more than that. Given low turnouts in local elections, especially among working-class voters, and the way that many people divide their loyalties between Lib Dems in local elections and Labour at general elections, a neck-and-neck result would be good news for Labour. The Tories need a 10-point lead next month to have any real chance of running Labour close when the big battle is joined next year.
Content from our partners
Related
