Morning after the long night before

The need for electoral reform has indeed been highlighted by the result of the general election. Despite the electoral map turning its bluest since the 1992 election, Labour’s many small inner-city seats, the over-representation of Scotland and in-built majority of 90 have helped Gordon Brown stay in Downing Street three days longer than he should have done.

There is a clear case, not for a proportion system that will deliver permanent hung parliaments and rig the voting system in favour of the Liberal Democrats, but for a refining of the boundaries to ensure that every constituency is the same size and that every vote is worth the same. The Lib Dems suffer from this system only because their vote is evenly spread as they try to be all things to all people – it is not intrinsically more difficult for them to win consistuencies than anyone else, as we saw in Eastbourne and Wells.

It is noticeable that many of DC’s inner circle, who were in many cases picked in seats where they had no connections, fared less well than average. It’s interesting because the Conservative Party is often criticised for lacking diverse MPs. But in this case, black, gay and female candidates have been rejected not by the party, but by the electorate. It’s a shame - but hardly the party’s fault.

I believe that Nick Clegg and DC will do a deal. In a sense, the Lib Dems have little choice. If they prop Brown up, they’ll sink back to the 15% support they enjoyed under Ming. If they refuse a pact with the Conservatives, they can hardly claim to be hard done by in the voting system when they’ve rejected a chance at power. Many Conservative activists will feel a ache in the pit of their stomach at the thought of going into coalition with the Lib Dems, but I don’t. As someone on the left of the party I share many of their social aims and the fact that we spend three months each year tearing strips of each other is simply election politics, nothing else.

During times of crisis, you have to work for the betterment of the nation. I don’t believe a Con-Lib coalition will survive any more than 18 months, but neither party has the resources nor the will for another election in 2010 and we need to work to steady the market and ensure that the financial meltdown that is now potentially on the cards is avoided. The markets want the debt tackled now and as the winners of the election, the Conservative prerogative should be to deliver debt reduction. The Lib Dem influence, as I see it, is to ensure that social issues don’t get left behind in this process and keep our party focussed on economic stability, education and social improvement.

The two most burning issues of difference – electoral reform and Europe – don’t need to have a part to play during this time. I utterly oppose membership of the EU – although that didn’t stop me losing in Horsell West by a fifth of the votes that UKIPpers took off me. But even I wouldn’t argue that the time for a referendum on this is now – it can wait until we have people back in work and the country is back on its feet.

Similarly, if Nick Clegg and his party think that the most pressing issue of the day is the case for PR, he’s sorely mistaken. Sure, the British public will say they want reform in the light of this shambles of an election but when it’s explained to them that PR always delivers a shambles and that it would effectively take from them the option of a Labour or Conservative government governing alone, they soon change their mind – and I know that because I explained it countless times on the doorstep. So this too can wait for another time.

The major problem it presents for the Conservative Party is delivery – will people understand the compromises being made if they are reflected in our ability to do what we said we would do? And if there is another election in October 2011, will the fluidity of our politics have continued and where will it have taken us? Labour’s most dreadful legacy, unfortunately, is leading us to a point where views about the best forward were so utterly polarised.

Uncertain times are these - and the last thing that our damaged nation needs.

5 Comments

  1. Denzil Coulson says:

    Oddly enough, I agree with some of your points on how a Lib-Con coalition could work regarding economic stability, education and social improvement. I would add if the Cons go further than AV. After all, only 36% voted for your party.

    The question still remains – are the Tories committed to a stable coalition for a full Parliament rather than just 18 months? If it is a full Parliament, that is far more sensible.

  2. simonashall says:

    Hi Denzil, congratulations on holding Goldsworth West last week. I know that 36% people voted for us but even if it had been the 42/43% that we might have had you’d still say that wasn’t a majority. We haven’t had a true majority government since the war.

    Only 23% voted for you and that’s hardly an endorsement of your electoral reform agenda either. I don’t think that the Lib Dems have the mandate to foist their manifesto on Britain any more than a minority Conservative government – in fact they have less of a mandate to do so. The public didn’t vote for the Lib Dems to choose the next government either – that’s just how our system works and I can accept that even if LDs want to change it.

    I don’t support AV but recognise DC must do what he can to stabilise the situation. As for whether that’s for 18 months or five years is not really for the Lib Dems to dictate. I think Nick Clegg has done about as much horsetrading as the public will put up with – so let’s concentrate on the economic, educational and social commonalities we have and if we can make it work for four years and find room for electoral reform along the way, so be it.

    If on the other hand your MPs would rather take a Campbell and Mandelson inspired alternative and deliver “change” with Labour, I don’t think that will deliver PR either and I’m pretty sure it would make our job in a future general election a great deal easier.

  3. Denzil Coulson says:

    Agreed. Compromise is in the national interest of the country and this deal appears to be the right one. It is only correct that we did a deal with the party who came first provided electoral reform is firmly on the agenda.

  4. simonashall says:

    Good that we agree Denzil – apparently we’re going to have to do this for three years!

Leave a comment