Alan Johnson: Labour must embrace voting reform
First-past-the-post is a miserably disempowering electoral system
These are indeed turbulent times – the economic pandemic spread much faster than the H1N1 virus. We in Britain have had to endure an added dimension, what many in the population would describe as "swine flu" without the flu. Politicians were hardly high in the public's affections before the MPs' expenses saga began, but now, as we stand marooned on Duck Island, it feels as if we'll wait some time before our return ticket to the human race arrives.
But all of this creates opportunity. Neither the banking collapse nor the allowances scandal should have happened; the former created misery for our constituents and the latter added disillusion to their disquiet. It's a miserable way to create a climate for change but advance through anguish is a well-trodden path.
There are three broad areas to the necessary debate. The first is the reshaping of our economy. The second (more prosaic) area concerns the terms and conditions for Parliamentarians.
But I want to dwell on the third, which is the constitutional debate about how democracy works in our country. Political renewal is the agenda of the left. By definition, the right is ill-equipped to do anything other than conserve.
Keir Hardie's founding manifesto for the Labour Representation Committee included votes for women, a Scottish Parliament, Lords reform and proportional representation. The Tories were traditionally against all four. They have modified their approach to the first; have been roundly defeated on the second; and have been forced by their parliamentary leadership to swear a superficial allegiance to the third.
On electoral reform, the Conservatives have supported First Past The Post when they were in front and when behind; when they won and when they lost. Bone-headed consistency is indeed an attribute we should concede to them.
Cameron's Open University speech in May was meant to project the Tories as the change agents on constitutional reform. The proposals he laid out were devoid of any meaningful commitments but, more importantly, they sought to close off debate about the most fundamental aspect of any democracy: how people's votes are translated into political power.
When I set out my view that there should be a referendum on the day of the next general election giving the British people a choice between retaining the current voting system or moving to AV+, Cameron wrote an article describing PR (the voting system rather than his profession) as a step backwards. His defence of FPTP was the familiar one. It allows the electorate to vote "strong" governments in and keep the BNP out.
The first point to make in response is that there is either a constitutional dimension to the debate on political re-engagement or there is not. It's difficult to understand the thought process behind an acceptance that fixed-term parliaments, candidate selection and the number of MPs can be valid and relevant to the situation we are in, but that any discussion at all about the electoral system is not.
To take one specific element, some argue that we need more MPs who are free of any party allegiance. Whilst I am firmly of the view that politics can be cleaned up without the help of irritating self-righteous men in white suits, it's worth remembering that for Martin Bell to be elected in Tatton, Labour and the Lib Dems had to collude to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote for them. Our miserably disempowering voting system is such that the citizen who admires the individual attributes of a local candidate but wants a different political party to form the government is forced to sacrifice one for the other.
The "safe seat" mentality must at least be an aspect of the accusation that MPs became careless in their expenses claims and dismissive of their electorate. Safe seats can exist under any electoral system, but FPTP is uniquely able to ensure that even at times when the majority of the electorate turn against the incumbents, they will struggle to unseat them if the protesting vote is split between different parties.
As Roy Jenkins pointed out in his seminal report, "the semi-corollary of a high proportion of the constituencies being in 'safe seat' territory is not merely that many voters pass their entire adult lives without ever voting for a winning candidate, but they do so without any realistic hope of influencing a result."
Cameron's Conservatives argue that none of this is relevant to the urgent need to rethink the way politics is conducted in Britain. They say there must be no change at all to a system that allows MPs with a minority vote for them as individuals to form a government on the basis of a minority vote for their party after which, fortified by the whipping system, they become what Lord Hailsham described as an elective dictatorship. They say we must stick with FPTP because "you know your vote has led directly to the ousting of one government for another".
Leaving aside the palpable nonsense of this description of our current system, what Cameron meant in this extract from his article is that FPTP produces single party government.
Jenkins tore this argument to shreds in five cogent paragraphs, demonstrating that "in only 64 of the past 150 years has there prevailed the alleged principal benefit of the FPTP system, the production of a single-party government with an undisputed command over the House of Commons".
He went on to propose a system, AV+, that maintains the constituency link, ensures that MPs have majority support (thus actually strengthening that link), would deny any seats to parties with less than 11 per cent support and provides greater proportionality whilst meeting his remit for stable government.
I have argued for the British people to be given a choice. I may not be able to convince colleagues that this should be the precise outcome of the debate on how to make progress on this aspect of constitutional renewal. However, I work for a leader who accepts the need for that renewal, with electoral reform as an essential element. And I belong to a party that could, as Jenkins said, "have the unique distinction of having broken the spell under which parties when they want to reform do not have the power, and when they have the power do not want the reform."
The writer is the Home Secretary. A longer version of this article will appear in the 'Fabian Review' this week
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
Much like Labours sudden conversion to Keynesian economics.
No wonder people say you've lost your honesty.
-------------------------
What is more irritating to me, is the elevation to the Lords of people who have not (and probably could not) be elected so that they can become Ministers of State - and in the case of Mandelson, effective Deputy Prime Minister. This Government has been an affront to the warped Democracy we already have: a PM with no mandate; an appointed Lords; Gerrymandered devolution; reneging on Manifesto Commitments to hold a Referendum. Maybe our electoral system does need changing - but I don't think PR is the solution. Far better to reduce the number of MPs to 350 (and Lords), thereby creating larger and more diverse constituencies and reducing the number of 'safe seats' naturally. It would also cut the costs of Parliament.
Whatever happens - I wouldn't trust Labour to enact anything. You had your chance - you blew it. I hope electoral annhialation is coming your way.
While the Labour party committed themselves in their manifesto to a referendum of electoral reform when they thought they might not get a thumping big majority and then abandoned it - and their manifesto promises - when they got an FPTP majority.
Forgive me for being ever so cynical, but I can't see what is to choose between the two major parties - bone-headed consistency vs cynical lying.
So, let's try and be positive for once, or yet another politician will go home muttering that he tried.
The Tories were and are in effect saying that a PR system is all very well for the provinces but not for us in Westminster - WE were elected under FPTP and we are jolly well going to keep it that way.
I would add incidentally that STV is a much better system than is AV+ and is the system which should be the subject of a referendum .
But there's the problem. When the back's against the wall and a vengeful electorate's circling and muttering, what better tactic than to put forward your most plausible guy to attempt some soft-soaping? Just maybe he might be able to talk them round.
Rather regretfully, I'm with the other cynics who've already commented. We've heard it all before. They promised it before, and then didn't deliver because, despite their fears, the old system unexpectedly served them too well. Now that the abyss opens beneath them under FPTP, some of them want to go for electoral reform again. Anything to maximize their chances, to hang on.
And even the nice Mr Johnson can't quite disguise the usual and authentic New Labour arrogance in his passing swipe at "irritating self-righteous men in white suits" who actually strike many of the electorate as more trustworthy and a better deal than a lot of his government colleagues, variously shifty, greedy and mendacious bunch that they are - and the bunch of bawling, tribal, grafting placemen that trot through the lobbies to keep them in power.
Billdavy1949, don't feel bad in case he goes home muttering that he's tried. Because he hasn't tried; all that he has done is tried it on ...!
The Jenkins' STV seems to fit the the answer to the problem well. Well done, Mr. Johnson.
Just bear in mind Mr Johnson, that we are watching Labour very closely now and we're ready for the fact that your venally corrupt party will try all manner of shenanigans to 'win' the coming General Election.
the problem is if the bnp get in under vote transfer and do well then they will grow in popularity despite the media trying to kill them off. once a party is humanised and the wasted vote argument is lost then things get interesting. the nz system of voting is particularly interesting as a transferable vote approach. maybe that could be considered, but of course it does guarantee coalitions of nebulously linked parties rather than strong government.
People must agree on the rules of the game before they can play it willingly. This is why constitutional reform traditionly has a Speakers Conference on electoral reform. In fact, there is one in session now
but it is on parliamentary representation. It seems to be virtually ignored by the media (indeed as it ignored my submission on electoral reform, tho it can be found online).
But the Tories dont have to heed your referendum. All they have to do is repeat William Hague, leader when the Jenkins report came out: It gives too much power to the parties. It is so extraordinarily
complicated. It is *a dog's breakfast.*
What is more, because of the weaknesses of AV+, it is unlikely to fare well in the referendum, when it will come under merciless criticism, indeed of the kind the Jenkins commission ignored from its accredited experts.
The effect of an AV+ referendum would be to reinforce the conviction of the Labour government's fundamental incompetance and actually depress your party's showing at the 2010 general election.
That is why it wont happen, over-whelming the AV+ referendum as a partisan tactic to attract the small parties' vote to buoy a sinking Labour support.
You are ill-informed about electoral method, or, have made a poor calculation that people will be desperate enough to be rid of FPTP that they will accept any specious substitute, acting in haste to repent at leisure.
This possibility seems to be affirmed by your evasive remark that *Safe seats can exist under any electoral system.* indicating wishful thinking rather than the reality of effective voting method.
In fact, the Plant report, you previously dredged up, was against STV precisely because that Labour party commission opposed the intra-party competition that STV allows the Irish people.
But democrats want STV as an electoral system that actually elects.