Richard Dawkins’ ‘European party’ would likely split the pro-European vote and let more Brexiteers into parliament, writes Charlie Cadywould
Bitter memories of the failed Social Democratic party mean that few, if any, centrist Labour members of parliament are in favour of a split, despite the party’s current difficulties. However, as non-Labour Remainers adjust to the triggering of article 50 and the heavy influence of the pro-Brexit Tory Right becomes apparent, the idea is gaining currency elsewhere.
In his piece on the future of Labour, George Eaton cites George Osborne, Anna Soubry and Nick Clegg as all being open to the idea of forming a new party. Richard Dawkins, following the firm assertion that ‘scientists are experts only in their limited field’, proceeds to give his tuppence worth on political strategy. He claims a European party ‘would attract a high proportion of the 48 per cent of us who voted Remain’ as well as ‘big donations’, and would stand a better chance of winning ‘than Labour or the Lib Dems under their present name’.
Let us leave aside the fact that the next election is not scheduled until 2020, when we will have left the European Union. Even if an early election were to be called, whether the ultimate goal is to save our EU membership, to stay in the single market, or simply to curtail the worst excesses of a hard Brexit, forming a new centrist party would be a terrible idea. To realise why, you just have to look at the numbers.
Based on all the available data, the political scientist Chris Hanretty has produced estimates of how every parliamentary constituency in Britain voted in the EU referendum. Of the 632 seats, 403 voted Leave, and 229 voted Remain. Of course, we would not be looking at a straight fight between a Remain party and a Leave party, but the signs already are not good. The first-past-the-post electoral system means even fairly narrow national leads can be translated into big majorities in the Commons.
Let us be more charitable to the advocates of a new party. Say they set themselves a more feasible task than a parliamentary majority: win enough seats to form a pro-European wedge between the two main parties. Whoever won would then be forced to make concessions to the 48 per cent, as they see it.
Now imagine an early election has been called, and Clegg, Soubry, Osborne and any others sit down to talk strategy. Which seats should they target? Presumably those which voted most heavily to Remain would be at the top of the list. But here is the problem: of the 100 top target seats for a European party, 40 are currently held by parties (the Scottish National party, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Greens) that could still be categorised as ‘anti-Brexit’, having voted against the article 50 Bill. A further 41 are held by Labour MPs. Of these, all but three backed Remain, and could probably be relied upon to vote to keep the United Kingdom in the single market and avoid a hard Brexit. Just 15 voted to trigger article 50, with more than half (24) voting against. How much more pro-European can you ask someone to be?
This leaves just 19 Conservative MPs to try to unseat. Of these, 13 backed Remain at the referendum, but none of them voted against triggering article 50 (Ken Clarke was the only Conservative to do so).
If the goal was to force the government into a softer Brexit, among the 100 seats a pro-European party would have the best chance of winning, just 9 would probably be worth winning. Even if the goal was to stop Brexit altogether (which pret
ty much all but the most ardent Remainers have abandoned now), using the article 50 vote as a guide, just 28 would be worth unseating. In the others, all they would achieve is splitting the pro-European vote with other progressive parties. They could look further down the list – it is often possible to win a parliamentary seat with 35-40 percent of the vote – but the smaller the core Remain vote, the more likely vote splitting would just let in an ardent Brexiteer.
The underlying problem is that a party explicitly set up on an internationalist, pro-European platform would struggle to appeal to voters in the constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Leave. Out of self interest, it would target areas that voted heavily to remain in the EU, but the MPs in these areas are already staunchly pro-European, so at best it would not affect the balance of power in the Commons, and at worst it would split the pro-European vote and let in more Brexiteers. The only feasible way to soften Brexit is to make the case from within existing parties, convincing those who voted to leave of the merits of continued co-operation with our European partners.
———————————
Charlie Cadywoud is a researcher at Policy Network. He tweets at @ccadywould
———————————