Do you want to know the biggest thing that Labour MPs could do to make a Labour government that bit more likely? It’s this: they need to stop voting against the government.

Not because they should stop opposing the government. The Conservatives haven’t suddenly been transformed into an unstoppable political force by the irresistible combination of making young people homeless and resurrecting a discredited qualification. But because, for the most part, voting against the government is a waste of time.

Votes in parliament are great theatre – if you have particularly low expectations of theatre – but for the most part, that’s all they are. Only the most contentious of votes is ever close, and when the government is in possession of a strong and healthy majority, as the coalition is, then there’s no real chance of beating them. The last time a vote in the Commons was genuinely impossible to call until after the fact was 2003.

Of course, there are times when Labour votes in the Commons will matter; on private members’ bills and on free votes. But those times come around once in a blue moon. The problem is, there is something seductive about the House of Commons: something about the excellent gift shop and the wonderful architecture creates the impression that it is, in some way, somewhere where governments fall. But governments don’t fall in the House of Commons in the 21^st century. They fall in Downing Street, and they fall at the polls.

At the moment, we expect our MPs to do a massive job. We expect them to attend parliamentary committees, vote in the House of Commons, represent their constituents, win re-election; oh, and help win a majority at the next election, too. And here’s the kicker: we expect them to do the last three over just three days; Friday, Saturday and Sunday. If we want our MPs to have, say, a day off from time to time, then that time is even shorter.

If an MP spends an hour of his or her time on a Tuesday evening voting for the losing side in a Commons division, they have accomplished very little, beyond a bracing walk in some reasonably nice surroundings. If an MP spends half an hour of his or her time on a Tuesday evening selling raffle tickets at a CLP dinner, they’ve raised a couple of hundred quid for the Labour party.

The question we should ask ourselves is: is losing by 80 votes really worth a couple of hundred quid? Is it worth the thousands of pounds Labour MPs could raise if we lost a vote by say, a hundred votes, or a hundred and fifty?  Does an MP win more support for Labour with a strong speech before an inevitable defeat? Or does an MP win more support for Labour by spending the day in a winnable seat like Stevenage or Manchester Withington? Constituency Labour parties across the country struggle to get members of the parliamentary party to help with fundraisers because they’re either in their constituencies, with their families, or losing votes in the House of Commons.

So what should Labour do instead? Instead of getting the whips’ office to focus on voting against awful – but inevitable – measures, the whips’ major task in opposition should be making sure that every winnable seat is being visited not just by the candidate, but by members of the parliamentary party on a regular basis. Sure, let’s make sure that the setpiece events are well-attended: no-one wants empty seats at prime minister’s questions. And, from time to time, it may be useful to force government MPs to actually record a yes vote for the appalling things they are doing. But for the most part, Labour has two choices: it can spend the next three years out in the country winning votes. Or it can spend the next eight years in the Commons losing them.

—————————————————————————————

Stephen Bush writes a weekly column for Progress, the Tuesday review, and tweets @stephenkb

—————————————————————————————

Photo: UK Parliament