If Labour wants to restore its reputation, it must introduce a referendum on Britain’s voting system, argues Ken Ritchie
Revelations about politicians operating a “help yourselves” expenses system have hurt all parties, but Labour has suffered worst – if only because we expect much more of Labour MPs. The expenses debacle would at any time be bad, but it has hit a party which was already in the doldrums, apparently at war with itself and without any clear sense of direction. It is not just that Labour seems to be unfit for purpose, but that it no longer seems to have a purpose.
We may now have put a stop to the abuse of the expenses system, but preventing politicians from doing what they should not be doing is hardly a reform. We still have MPs stuck in the rut of an outdated political system, jockeying for power and electoral advantage rather than engaged in the search for imaginative answers to the big and difficult questions Britain faces. A new type of politics is needed if we are to start restoring confidence in politics, and a new political culture is essential to make the space that progressive politics needs.
Recent events may have been a disaster for the current parliamentary system, but it is said that disasters can also bring opportunities. They can be responsible for breaking open the old order, making it possible for new and more radical ideas to emerge. The scandal of MP’s expenses gives us the chance to make a proper reform of our political system.
Across the parties, there is widespread agreement on what is needed: MPs who are more accountable to their constituents, and a House of Commons that is better able to hold ministers to account. Proposals for fixed-term parliaments and for limitations on the power of the whips are sensible enough, but we need to go further. Things will be not changed fundamentally while most MPs enjoy the security of safe seats and while Britain has a Government that, in spite of the weakness of its electoral support, enjoys a Commons majority that enables it to steamroller through its proposals.
This is why the country needs electoral reform. We need not aim for pure proportional representation, but we should at least aspire to a more proportional system that would make the Commons more reflective of how the votes are cast at a general election. The result would be decisions made on the strength of the arguments rather than the power of the whips. The House of Commons would become a place where a wider range of minority but valuable opinions could be heard. It would mean more votes would count in elections. No longer would the result be dependent on what happens in a minority of marginal constituencies. With the right choice of system, fewer politicians would think they had the protection of a job for life that goes with a safe seat.
Labour promised a referendum on the electoral system in 1997, but it did not deliver on its pledge. Its 2001 and 2005 manifestos maintained that a referendum was the right way to change the voting system, but promised only a review of the experience of the new voting systems introduced in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the London Assembly. That review was eventually completed early in 2008. It concluded that the new systems had produced more representative results, that they had provided voters with more meaningful choices, and that the stability and effectiveness of government had not been lost where more proportional systems had led to no party having an outright majority. Now that the Government’s own review has established the case for electoral reform, it is time for Labour to deliver on its commitment.
However, it will not be possible to introduce a new voting system before the next general election. There is no time to make the necessary boundary and other legislative changes. And Labour, trailing so badly in the polls, would be accused of trying to fix the system in order to avoid defeat. But there is still an option open for the party and that is holding a referendum on the day of the next general election.
Such a referendum might not change the outcome of the next election, but it would mean that the next government – and at present that looks like being a Conservative one – might take office bound by a commitment to introduce a better system before the following election. Indeed, polling evidence suggests electors are hungry for change and that a referendum on electoral reform would be won.
A new campaign, “Vote for a change”, calling for a referendum on election day has now been launched. It is not a campaign that has been cooked up in the corridors of Westminster, but a broad people’s campaign with endorsements from celebrities including Stephen Fry, Vivienne Westwood, Richard Wilson and Philip Pullman. It is supported by many environmental activists who want a parliament that will be better able to address the challenges of climate change; by many in the anti-poverty lobby who want a government more responsive to their concerns; by women’s groups, youth organisations and ethnic communities who want a parliament that better reflects the diversity of society.
There is also already strong support for the campaign in Labour’s ranks. Compass has played a major role in getting it underway, while leaders of Progress and the Fabians have been centrally involved. Several Labour MPs have also joined the campaign, but most significantly Alan Johnson, with support from John Denham, has called for an election day referendum on a change from first past the post to alternative vote-plus – the voting system recommended by the Jenkins Commission which Labour set up in 1997.
AV-plus uses single-member constituencies but, in electing constituency MPs, voters mark their ballot papers showing their order of preference among the candidates. The winner is then determined in a way similar to the eliminating ballot method Labour uses in selecting candidates. It means that a candidate needs the support of at least half of the voters in order to win – something that only a third of MPs achieved in 2005. However, voters also have a separate vote for a small number of regional MPs. These seats are awarded to parties in a way that achieves a fairer overall result.
AV-plus would not go as far as many reformers would like. Adopting the single transferable vote system would go further, offering Labour supporters a choice between Labour candidates and achieving broad proportionality without the need for regional MPs. Nevertheless, AV-plus would go a long way towards putting right what is wrong with our elections, so Alan Johnson’s proposal should be welcomed. What is important now, however, is to convince the Government that a referendum is needed if Labour’s reputation as a reforming party that keeps its promises is to be retained and if we are to open the door to a new type of politics in which Labour’s values can flourish.
The campaign needs your support. You can add your voice to the demand for real change on our website, www.voteforachange.org.uk.
Ken Ritchie is general secretary of the Electoral Reform Society
