The Last Labour Government: Why Only a Referendum on Electoral Reform Can Save the Party Now
Compass
With a general election imminent, predictions of what might happen are legion. The latest pamphlet from Compass, however, goes beyond predictions of the result to forecast the collapse of the Labour Party if the election goes badly. As the title The Last Labour Government suggests, Compass believes that the Labour Party will never govern again. However, they go on to offer a way back from the brink – through a referendum on proportional representation to be held on election day.
The prediction of disaster is, arguably, more soundly based than the solution. Compass argues that three “unprecedented factors” could come into play if the Conservatives win. First, David Cameron proposes a 10 per cent cut in MPs, a total of 65, of which 45 would be Labour seats. Second, a Tory government at Westminster would aid the SNP in winning a referendum on independence in 2010. Third, a Cameron government would change the rules on party funding to eliminate trade union funding and cut off Labour’s cash supply.
These are all realistic points and should be taken very seriously. Compass quotes the Electoral Calculus poll giving 364 Tories, 200 Labour and 44 Liberal Democrats and then fast forwards to an election held under the new rules, in which Labour would get only 130 seats. It is a sober and realistic calculation. As Compass rightly says, the Cameron Tories are not a cuddly centrist party but a vicious right wing party. Sadly, while they would do immense damage in power, David Cameron appears to have convinced the country this is not so, and progressives have a mountain to climb in arguing that this is indeed the case.
But would a referendum on PR on the day of the election resolve the problem? Compass sees this as a “game changer” which would transform the party’s prospects. It cites poll data that 30 per cent of Lib Dems and a similar proportion of Labour voters would come over to it with a referendum on election day. But this would require two U-turns by Gordon Brown. First, Labour would have to change its plans for a referendum after the election if it wins and, second, it would have to adopt PR not the alternative vote.
The current promise is the one Labour made in 1997, which it broke, and lacks credibility. The second would split the party, as while AV is not proportional, it is favoured by many in the PLP as offering more rather than fewer seats. Brown’s top priority is to keep his party together: he will not risk splits over this.
Some argue that a referendum on PR is still likely, notably Ben Bradshaw. Others in the cabinet suggest that a law passed prior to the election for a binding referendum after the event would be viable. This is true, but if tied to the alternative vote would split the reform lobby.
The third option, suggested by The Guardian, is the New Zealand approach – a two stage referendum. The first stage would be on the principle of reform, and if the vote was yes then a second on different systems would be held.
This is more realistic. The Compass strategy is, frankly, a non-starter, particularly when they argue that ministers and MPs would be “free to campaign on either side”. For a party to go into an election with its spokespeople openly divided on such a major issue would produce the very disaster Compass says it wants to avoid.
The arguments it is putting forward are clever, but not very intelligent: the formula for success has to be one which unites Labour, not divides it. Sadly, while the dangers facing the party are as serious as Compass suggests, its solution is a non-starter which, if attempted, would disastrously split the party from top to bottom.
While Labour may indeed be on the brink of catastrophe, the Compass strategy for electoral reform is not the solution to the problem.
Trevor Fisher
