The Progress editorial advocating a change in the electoral system (The right to rule, November/ December 2005) provided slightly curious reading for Labour supporters.
It argued for the adoption of PR on tactical grounds. Although Labour has successfully won three general elections, at some point very soon, it claimed, there will be a Conservative government. Therefore, we should quickly change the electoral system to permanently prevent this prospect.
Not only is this unnecessarily bleak – almost to the point of defeatist – but to change the rules of the game in this way at this time would rightly be seen by the public as wholly cynical and opportunist. Even if the sole concern were to advance party advantage, ditching the electoral system in favour of PR now would have profoundly undesirable consequences for the Labour party.
PR would almost certainly mean that no government could ever have a majority in the House of Commons, or the ability to deliver change. The dubious assertion that it would abolish the prospect of a majoritarian Conservative government has to be balanced against the fact there would never again be a majority Labour government. Under PR, no government could ever have legislated for the creation of the National Heath Service, or, more recently, the national minimum wage.
If anyone wants a clearer warning of the folly of PR, they should look no further than the recent experience in Germany. The German electorate had to wait two months while party managers in smoke-filled rooms wrestled over the keys to the ministerial Volkswagons. What has resulted is an unhappy situation, where the centre-left SPD has been forced into a coalition led by the right-wing Christian Democrats.
Many still view PR as a panacea. Campaigners argue that the problem of voter engagement and falling turnouts would somehow be addressed overnight by the introduction of PR, with voters descending on polling stations in their millions, knowing that ‘every vote will count’. Unfortunately, recent experience with PR here in Britain does not bear this out. When PR was introduced in the UK for elections to the European parliament, the result was a dismally low turnout, a damaging end to the constituency link and a disaster for the Labour party’s standing.
Furthermore, if we had PR for elections at Westminster, a minority Labour government would inevitably be forced into a period of horse-trading with smaller minority parties and, in particular, with the Liberal Democrats. This gives the Lib Dems hugely disproportionate influence: with them, in effect, holding the balance of power.
Progress enjoys many readers amongst Labour councillors. Those who have fought the Lib Dems at a local level know only too well what a thoroughly dishonest and opportunist franchise – operation the Lib Dems are. The thought of being permanently beholden to the Lib Dems is not an attractive proposition for Labour. Any ‘progressive’ who has read the Orange Book, the series of essays by the Lib Dems’ free marketers, will find little to cheer about. It is also entirely conceivable that the Lib Dems would enter coalition with the Tories if they felt it was in their interests to do so, as they have already done in many councils.
What is most depressing about the Progress editorial, however, given that the publication is in the vanguard of New Labour, is its failure to grasp the success that the Labour party has had in recent years. There were those in the immediate aftermath of Labour’s defeat in 1992 who said the Labour party could never win. It was the same argument that the SDP used a decade before to justify their treachery and desertion.
What Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have shown is that, if the party is modernised and reflects the aspirations and concerns of voters on the centre ground, not only can Labour win, but it can use power to implement a radical and ambitious programme to change society for the better. We did it before, and we can do it again. And we did so with the current electoral system.