An edited version of this article appeared in Chartist Magazine, July/August 2005
On election night whilst we were milling around at the count waiting for the first Birmingham results, I was asked by an interviewer about the likely results. I found myself saying that big majorities were bad for governments. We all knew Labour would lose seats and it seemed best to make a virtue of this. I later remembered that
Mrs Thatcher had dropped Francis (now Lord) Pym from her Cabinet for saying the same thing, but it was too late to apply that sanction to me. It was clear throughout the campaign that the voters and perhaps especially traditional Labour supporters did not want a Tory government, but wanted to chastise Tony Blair and were therefore determined to reduce Labour's majority. Many lifelong Labour supporters made it clear that they were voting Liberal Democrat to protest against the Iraq war and would not consider voting Labour until Blair had gone. The swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats was also very high in seats with a large Bangladeshi and Pakistani population. I think it would be unwise for Labour to assume that all these votes will come back in 2009.
What the election demonstrated was that the first past the post system is a very blunt instrument. MPs in the marginals pay the price for government unpopularity, whatever their record. And there is a danger that MPs in the safe seats tend to defend the status quo. It is notable that the three former chairs of the Labour Campaign for
Electoral Reform lost their seats. That process of losing the 1997 majority, which stalled in 2001, when Labour lost votes but not seats, is likely to continue. It is highly likely that Labour will continue to lose seats in local government and may well lose its majority in 2009. The prospects for a hung parliament in 2009 must be significant. This could well lead to a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition and agreement to change the voting system. It would of course be more elegant if Labour stood by its 1997 manifesto commitment to a referendum on electoral reform, rather than have it forced upon it by another round of poor election results. But despite a big growth of support for electoral reform after an election that gave Labour a 67 seat majority with the support of only 35.2% of the electorate, there is as yet little sign of such a move amongst Labour's leadership. This could turn out to be Gordon Brown's tragedy with a late hand over from Blair leading to defeat in 2009.
Immediately after the election, the press reported that the electorate had given Blair a bloody nose and the spin from No 10 was of humility and listening. But the arrogance of the big majority soon reasserted itself and it seems to be forgotten that we now have 105 Labour MPs with majorities lower than 5,000. Only 15 of these have Lib Dems in second place; however, 43 Labour MPs have smaller majorities over the Lib Dems than Anne Campbell's 8,579 in 2001. Clearly, Labour's majority is no longer unassailable.
We need to face the fact that we have a Labour government with less percentage support than any government since the Great Reform Act in 1832 and Labour’s 9.5million votes is our lowest post war vote, second only to 1983. The shocking reality is that of all those registered to vote, 4 did not vote, 4 voted for other parties and 2 voted Labour. Labour's majority is a gross exaggeration of its support at the ballot box and it is impossible for Labour to seriously claim that it has a mandate from the electorate. The continuing rise of the third Party is creating an even greater distortion than is normal in British elections and causing a growing disgruntlement amongst the electorate.
It was very noticeable towards the end of the campaign that there was a panic at the top and Tony Blair ceased to appear unless accompanied by Gordon Brown. The Labour campaign then went to great lengths to claim - misleadingly - that a vote for the Liberal Democrats would result in a Tory government. As Labour under Blair has moved steadily rightwards, it bangs the anti-Tory drum louder and louder to try to keep the Labour vote in line. But increasingly this will not work. Until recently most contests in constituencies were between Labour and the Conservatives. Not any longer. Labour is in third place in over 120 seats and voters have got used to tactical voting.
We talk a lot about good governance and make it a condition of writing off debt and making investment when it comes to international development. But Chris Patten recently said on' Any Questions?' that if any of his EU monitoring missions had been asked to observe a system like the UK's which is so unrepresentative of the people's vote and biased to the executive, it would not be given a clean bill of health. Interestingly Neil Kinnock made clear his support for electoral reform in the same programme.
In 1997 we made the offer of a referendum to let the people decide. We all know our democracy is flawed, our government lacks legitimacy, parties target individuals who can make the difference between winning and losing in the few key marginals and Labour moves ever more sharply to the right to hold on to the votes of middle England. And increasingly voters are disengaged from politics and the Labour Party is crumbling across the country. Electoral reform would entrench progressive politics for years ahead, reinstate the authority of parliament and respect for public opinion and create the conditions for rebuilding the Labour Party. The question is whether we have to wait to learn the hard way.
Clare Short, MP for Birmingham
June 2005
